I may have erred by way of omission in my previous commentary.  Please
allow me to append this brief clarification.
The Commonwealth Attorney did not specifically mention the more
bizarre aspects of the multiple cases I had referenced in my
commentary.  This was added by way of my own digression.
I reasonably derive that the Commonwealth Attorney, a capable and
competent individual, derives his understanding of these cases from
but casual reading of same in professional journals, and that he
would, in all likelihood, reject them as unreasonable in the event
that he were faced with such "evidence" in his professional capacity.
I did not mean to suggest otherwise, and realize that I may have taken
the turn a bit too quickly, leaving some with that impression.
--- FMail/386 1.0g
---------------